What I would suggest in response is that you stop giving voice to every idea that pops into your head. Find supporting evidence first, in this case of your belief that electrons do not flow through wires. The physicists and electrical engineers (I have a Bachelors degree in electrical engineering) have quite a bit of evidence that electrons do flow through wires. We even know where (in the perimeter) and how fast (slowly - the drift velocity of electrons is only a few centimeters per second for everyday voltages).

That is why an overloaded fuse breaks in the middle of it.

The fuse breaks where the wire is smallest (can transmit the least current) and furthest from the junctions where it can dissipate heat, which happens to be near the middle.

I did not come up with this idea...

Oh, come now, don't be modest, take credit for it. It certainly isn't an idea anyone else would ever fight with you over.

...but it is what has led me to my cosmological theory.

Wrong ideas will only give rise to more wrong ideas. Because everything you know seems to be wrong, all your ideas are also wrong.

So when you want to understand science, you read a book by (this is from Wikipedia) "an eccentric Latvian emigrant to the United States and amateur sculptor who single-handedly built the monument known as Coral Castle in Florida. He was also known for his unusual theories on magnetism."

Why do you think you should have any better luck uttering Ed's weird ideas than Ed did?

And in my opinion therein lies the problem. You don't have a clue about the science you critisize. You haven't ever bothered to learn. Yet you want others to accept your thoughts born out of ignorance. In my original reply to you I linked to other pages that explain the observations and science behind centrifugal force, which is what your sponge experiment is modeling and the real worlds observations for galactic rotational curves for what your experiment is supposed to model. Here are those links again. Centrifugal force

My advise is that you take the time to learn something first and you should be able to see where your experiment fails.ABE: Here is graph of the velocity of stars vs. the distance from the center of the galaxy.

In this illustration you will notice that one of the lines (A) falls steeply as the distance from the center of the galaxy increases. This is the predicted velocities. It is also exactly what we would see in your sponge-stick experiment. The water drops farther from the sponge would be moving at a slower velocity from those close to the sponge. However this is in direct contradiction from the actual observed velocity (B). Using measured values we find that the stars velocity stays fairly constant throughout the galaxy regardless off distance from the center. That is why your experiment fails to model real world observations.

Edited by rueh, : Graph and explanation

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZThe industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFXIt takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

Hello, and Good day!I wish to respond to each and everyone of your messages, in the mean time, here is something of interest. It is a theme that comes up time and again in reference to new discoveries.

There are significant scientific problems with attempts to explain the formation of stars and planets from clouds of gas and dust.6 , 7 One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be. There are other major problems

This is looking at things from the accretion view. On the other hand, in attepts to explain my theory, I researched to see if exoplanets have been found in exteme proximity to thier host star. Assuming planets come from their host star, I would expect to find planets closer and closer to their host star and eventually find planets in contact with thier host star in the process of being ejected. This is what I have found.

The planets have also broken another record: at distances of only 897,000 km and 1,137,000 km, they are closer to their star than any other exoplanet ever observed.

Besides the quandry of deciding if Hot Jupiters form close to the star and migrate out or the reverse, I suspect that there are Hot Jupiters that that are unexplianed because of the lack of mechanisms postulated to cause mighration. Thus, another hypothesis I have is that I would expect to find Hot Jupiters that are unexplained by the migration theroy. This will be examined and reported on in my next general message.Thank you for your interest.

There are significant scientific problems with attempts to explain the formation of stars and planets from clouds of gas and dust.6 , 7 One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be.

Oooh, if only they had any evidence for this.

Besides the quandry of deciding if Hot Jupiters form close to the star and migrate out or the reverse ...

Well, we have math and physics on our side. You have a synthetic poriferan on a stick. It's not much of a quandry.

I suspect that there are Hot Jupiters that that are unexplianed because of the lack of mechanisms postulated to cause mighration.

Have you ever noticed that you find lots of coat hangers, more coat hangers than stuff to hang, yet also find a drawer full of single socks, socks without a matching sock.

This great problem has puzzled science down since socks and coat hangers were first invented.

Now it has been solved.

The answer lies in genetics. Socks accrete with a another sock during periods of high temperature, humidity and turbulence; two socks become one. As the humidity lowers and temperature lessens that melded sock splits, but the high heat and humidity followed by rapidly decreasing humidity accompanied by turbulence often causes copy errors so that when the sock splits, one or even both resulting critters become...

Yes Virginia, it becomes a coat hanger.

The result is that in every wash/dry cycle there will always be cases where one or more socks seem to disappear and that when hanging clothes up, there always seems to be an excess of coat hangers.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Sorry to disappoint you, jar, but I have a competing theory. All the missing socks in the world are lying around the place, undiscoveed, after they flew off the end of the stick they were spinning on. You see, the physicists and mathematicians got it completely wrong and they've been using socks instead of sponges, but it's hard to force a stick through a sock so they just balanced them on top. These physics and maths guys just don't think it through properly. Anyway, everyone knows that it's knickers you should use cos then you can mimic a proper planetary orbit around the gusset.

Jar and Trixie are having so much fun that I really hesitate to be the one who insists on discussing a small bit of physics. Physics is of course, that mathy-sciency stuff that Newton, Gauss, and Galileo were so found of.

I'm sure most of my fellow arm chair astronomers know why Hot Jupiter planets have turned up so often in the search for exo planets. But I'll discuss the underlying science as though I were alone in the asylum.

Up until relatively recently, most exo-planets were detected by measuring changes in the proper motion of the star they orbited. The velocity of the star can be measured by looking at the doppler shifts in the frequency of star light over time. If a scientist wants to discover a planet in some reasonable time frame (e.g. before some other scientist manages to do it and publish a paper, or before his slaving grad student goes on strike), the scientist is going to be looking at stars whose proper motions are cyclic over some reasonably short time period. That means, planets with small orbital periods, meaning on the order of many months or less, rather than many years are going to get found. Of course, Kepler's third law (derivable from Newton's laws of motion) tells us that short period means close in orbits (or really big stars to orbit around)

And of course, using doppler shifts also requires that the sun's motion be of significant magnitude to allow readily detecting the small frequency changes in the star's light. Big stars don't move as much as little stars, and big planets move their stars a lot more than do big planets. Given the first limitation, the net result is that it is far easier to find hot, jovial planets than to find rocky, earth like planets.

Almost certainly, the proliferation of hot Jupiter planets among discovered planets is an artifact of the search method. It would probably be impossible to detect an earth sized planet orbiting the nearest star using the above method.

Thus, another hypothesis I have is that I would expect to find Hot Jupiters that are unexplained by the migration theroy. This will be examined and reported on in my next general message.

As sure as the shootin', this threat will never be carried out. As an aside, it would be improper to call things made up in one's head out of pure fog, hypotheses, and the height of presumption to call those ideas theories. If your ideas aren't testable or suggested in some way be the evidence, then those thoughts are flights of fantasy, or acid dreams, or pure imagination; but they aren't hypotheses.

One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be

This is written as though the author of the statement had actually witnessed hypothetical disks of gas and dust dissipating. As If.

Typical creationist nonsense. One creationist lies, and another swears to it on his web page, and a thousand more creationists hang on every word, simply because the lie appears to be consistent with the Bible.

Nobody will fault someone for not accepting the accretion hypothesis for planet formation. But even if accretion were as wrong as too left shoes, that state of affairs would not make it any more likely that the tooth fairy hid the planets under the sun's pillow.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

So when you want to understand science, you read a book by (this is from Wikipedia) "an eccentric Latvian emigrant to the United States and amateur sculptor who single-handedly built the monument known as Coral Castle in Florida. He was also known for his unusual theories on magnetism."

Why do you think you should have any better luck uttering Ed's weird ideas than Ed did?

--Percy

How do we ever really come to any vastly new understanding if we limit ourselves to only those things that are not unusual? Why not just investigate and use a little imagination? I personally think that the attitudes of the scientific community as displayed on this board are responsible for the retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years. I know you will protest that there has been a great increase in knowledge. True, but I believe it could have been even greater without the current shackles placed upon it by the intellectual inquisition that is typified by the members on this board.